Techno, taking this article seriously is not "keeping an open mind", it's being fooled.

I do believe that there is global warming, and I have always said so. However, keeping an open mind simply means that we should not blindly swallow EVERYTHING that is fed to us without considering all elements of the issue.

The article simply points out that the increasing global temperature doomsday hype that is being pitched may not be all that it is purported to be.

An article that discusses warming predictions and uncertainties and shortcomings of such predictions would be useful and important.

It would not say that there is "insufficient data" for global warming. That is what this article says. But it doesn't give you pause?

It would also not call climate research the greatest hoax in history. Extremists do that. I have a hard time believing that you don't agree. But you still take this piece seriously?

I'm sorry but here is my take. If you were critical, you'd agree that the article is a propaganda piece. That doesn't mean that some claims aren't true but there is no reason you would promote it or take it seriously when there is an abundance of reliable information available. My guess is that, because of highly successful right wing propaganda, this article fits your beliefs and you like it unreservedly for that reason. I'm guessing this because of your strange choice of words like blindly swallowing and doomsday hype, which is not what is going on in the real world.

You tend to ignore anything that contradicts what most people (the left) believe about global warming. I am naturally a skeptic regarding anything remotely pitched by the left or tied to politics. It doesn't mean that they are wrong, but I choose to "keep an open mind" and consider what the opposition has to say about their point of view.

I probably read and see more from the left than I do from the right, and it's clear that both sides can be extremely bias. If you don't look at the big/complete picture, you will likely miss the "whole" story which has been my pitch on this forum for some time. Both sides pitch some crap on every issue, so it's incumbent upon us to try and decipher what is or isn't the truth.

You said:

Quote:

An article that discusses warming predictions and uncertainties and shortcomings of such predictions would be useful and important.

While I may not have been clear (over stated the issue), the story does what you say, which suggests that the hyped "rapid warming" may not be all that rapid. Or at least, the process for determining temperature changes is not all that definitive.

Let's be clear. The two authors cited by Tehchno work for the Heartland Institute, which is paid by the carbon companies to mis-represent the science of climate change. The comments about temperatures and their accuracy is the first obvious whopper in the story. In fact, temperature records are taken from a vast array of sources, and complex algorithms have been developed to make the data comparable. The denier business has been misrepresenting temperature data for more than a decade. Millions of dollars flow to Heartland to tell these lies. People with no interest in science, but deep suspicion, believe them.

Let's be clear. The two authors cited by Tehchno work for the Heartland Institute, which is paid by the carbon companies to mis-represent the science of climate change. The comments about temperatures and their accuracy is the first obvious whopper in the story. In fact, temperature records are taken from a vast array of sources, and complex algorithms have been developed to make the data comparable. The denier business has been misrepresenting temperature data for more than a decade. Millions of dollars flow to Heartland to tell these lies. People with no interest in science, but deep suspicion, believe them.

The exact definition of a closed mind. He will never consider anything opposing what he believes, regardless of the source. Slow down a bit, you are making too many typos (Tehchno), plus there is no hypen in misrepresent, which isn't a typo.

Let's be clear. The two authors cited by Tehchno work for the Heartland Institute, which is paid by the carbon companies to mis-represent the science of climate change. The comments about temperatures and their accuracy is the first obvious whopper in the story. In fact, temperature records are taken from a vast array of sources, and complex algorithms have been developed to make the data comparable. The denier business has been misrepresenting temperature data for more than a decade. Millions of dollars flow to Heartland to tell these lies. People with no interest in science, but deep suspicion, believe them.

The exact definition of a closed mind. He will never consider anything opposing what he believes, regardless of the source. Slow down a bit, you are making too many typos (Tehchno), plus there is no hypen in misrepresent, which isn't a typo.

Dead wrong Techno. I said that the temperature argument in the article is fundamentally wrong, and that people paid by the carbon companies have been repeating this lie for decades. It is complicated--but if you really favored an open mind, you would do some research yourself. I have explained it on the forum at least once. You usually rise above name-calling, but not this time.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou cannot download files in this forum